Talk:René Duquesne (Earth-616)
given that this guy's real name was given in a handbook, I would consider moving the ccoontent from Jean-Luc Batroc (Earth-616) here. Any other opinions?--edkaufman (talk) 12:35, May 22, 2015 (UTC) The biographical data given on the two characters is very inconsistent. It seems to me that there must have been more than one Crimson Cavalier.Tony ingram (talk) 13:44, May 22, 2015 (UTC) What biographical data? All we know about "Duquesne" is that he was a hero in Freedom's Five and may have been Swordsman's ancestor. That's it, and it isn't inconsistent at all with what we learned about "Batroc". The only inconsistency is their names. Monolith616 (talk) 14:01, May 22, 2015 (UTC) After reading the issue, I think I have to agree with monolith - this seems a very simple case of bad research/oversight on the part of the writer, who wasn't aware another name had been given in one of the handbooks (that's what happens when these guys don't consult a decent wiki when writing this stuff, damn it!). There is nothing in the story that suggests either of these characters had been replaced at a certain point. I suggest merging the characters and mentioning the issue under the notes. Tony, are you fundamentally opposed?--edkaufman (talk) 14:38, May 22, 2015 (UTC) No, not really-if the Handbook entry is being considered the definitive one, I'm happy with that. The batroc thing is a fairly obvious error, I was just trying to rationalize it in-universe. Tony ingram (talk) 14:45, May 22, 2015 (UTC) In-universe, Swordsman's father only assumed the Cavalier was a Duquesne based on undisclosed and possibly biased personal research. Accepting the Handbook reference to "Rene Duquesne", it's not unreasonable that a known rogue like Jean-Luc Batroc may have had aliases to hide behind. (To be clear, I'd also argue that it hardly qualifies as "bad research" that the All-New Invaders writer didn't check for information about Freedom's Five hidden away in a Vampire specialty Handbook under the Bio text of Baron Blood, a character none of the Five except Union Jack were ever associated with except for one reference in a PREVIOUS Handbook entry. "Easter egg" continuity like this is one of the least-appealing aspects of the Handbooks.) Monolith616 (talk) 14:55, May 22, 2015 (UTC) I have always considered it one of the most '' appealing. These days, with information just a mouse click away, there's no excuse for lack of basic research as far as I'm concerned. Tony ingram (talk) 15:05, May 22, 2015 (UTC) That information is virtually impossible to find in its original source unless you knew exactly where to look. Checking the most recent Handbook entries for Crimson Cavalier, Freedom's Five, even Union Jack or Invaders would be "basic research". Checking every Handbook entry that might be connected to the Cavalier in a "Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon" way, line-by-line, is not "basic". Finding a secondary source on-line might be easy, but since wikis can be edited by anyone, the information is unofficial and automatically suspect. False information on comic books (''especially previously undisclosed real names) has survived for years on Wikis, not just because it goes unnoticed, but from contributors actively protecting it despite lack of citations because "Well, all the other Wikis and websites have it." I see no reason to fault Robinson for not finding this information before writing his story. Monolith616 (talk) 15:23, May 22, 2015 (UTC) : This escalated quickly. ;) Anyway - considering this page has existed under name of Duquesne since 2011 (ehen the handbook in question came out), it would have been easy to find. I'm not saying the author should have accepted it at face value, but the source was given and it should have been easy for him to check it out. : Back on topic: There's a consensus, so I'm merging the pages. This discussion will stay up, so if anyone later disagrees with the decision, drop a line to me or another admin and we can easily restore the deleted pages.--edkaufman (talk) 16:13, May 22, 2015 (UTC) ::Will you be merging the Silver Squire and Sir Steel pages as well? ::Also, I would suggest using Batroc as the main page and listing Duquesne as the alias. Again, I cite the precedent of Squadron Supreme's Whizzer -- even though he was called Hiram Arnold first and in the Handbook, in-universe the name he used was Stanley Stewart. Whizzer's entry lists Stewart as the real name and Arnold as the alias. As in that case, while the Crimson Cavalier was referred to as Duquesne first and in the Handbook, in-universe the character has only answered to Batroc. That should be the primary name unless suggested otherwise. Monolith616 (talk) 16:25, May 22, 2015 (UTC) ::: Done - Sir Steel and a minor edit on the squire as well. I have to disagree with monolith here - a handbook reference supercedes a comic reference. Unless the issue will be revisited in another handbook or in the comics (which was the case with the Whizzer), we have to go by the more authoritative source, not the newer one.--edkaufman (talk) 16:49, May 22, 2015 (UTC) :::: How can a guidebook to a universe be more authoritative than the universe itself? Characters in the Marvel Universe have looked the Crimson Cavalier in the face and called him "Jean-Luc Batroc". How is that less relevant than one line of text in a random Handbook entry? Monolith616 (talk) 01:40, May 23, 2015 (UTC) :::::Simple: There can be other explanations for why they called him that in-universe. Like, for example, he was not using his real name. Which for a known criminal indeed makes sense, no?--edkaufman (talk) 09:46, May 23, 2015 (UTC) ::::::Sure. And it would also make sense that Jean-Luc Batroc, known publically as both a criminal and war hero, later adopted the name Duquesne in order to retire in obscurity. We can sit here and make up explanations for why either name is the alias. That doesn't address the issue at hand. If an encyclopedia is published that says bumblebees have no stingers, the stingers don't suddenly vanish from reality. In the Marvel Universe, the Crimson Cavalier has been called Jean-Luc Batroc. In the Marvel Universe, the Crimson Cavalier has never been called Rene Duquesne. Occam's Razor, his real name is Jean-Luc Batroc. Monolith616 (talk) 14:15, May 23, 2015 (UTC) ::::::This is becoming a little pointless. If you don't believe me that handbooks being authoritative is site policy, ask another admin. Besides - Occham's razor doesn't apply to speculation. You are speculating that it is his real name because he was called that by another character in-universe. The handbook states a fact that unless disproven by another fact, remains true.--edkaufman (talk) 14:38, May 23, 2015 (UTC) :::::::It WAS disproven by another fact. It is a fact that his real name was revealed, in story, to be Jean-Luc Batroc. I'm not speculating -- that is exactly what happened. You are speculating ways that this fact must be false because of this Handbook Uber Alles mindset. Or are only things published in the Handbook "facts", and things published in the actual comics "speculation"? Because that's pretty bass-ackwards. Monolith616 (talk) 15:20, May 23, 2015 (UTC) :::::::I'm sorry, but that's not what happened. Here's the facts: A name was given in a Marvel publication - the handbooks. Which, yes, are authoritative when in doubt. That's been the policy ever since I've been on this site. Then, another name was given without any explanation for this discrepancy. :::::::There's plenty of precedence for characters indeed being renamed. You named one. Magneto being retconned to Max Einsenhardt was another. But in all these cases, sooner or later an explanation was given for the change. This is not the case here. We have a handbook stating his real name is Duquesnes. And we have a comic in which a character calls him by another name. There are two ways to accomodate both facts: One: they are two different characters - which is what started this conversation and evveryone agreed that this was speculative as well. Two: The new name is an alias. Unless a different explanation is given in any Marvel publication, we cannot simply discount a given FACT (ie the handbook entry) because an author either made a mistake or forgot to give us relevant information. :::::::Once more - if you don't believe me, you're of course free to consult a second admin on this. But repeating the same argument without providing further pproof is not going to convince anyone.--edkaufman (talk) 16:11, May 23, 2015 (UTC) :::::::If I remain incredulous, it's because of how myopic your reasoning is here. An explanation is not always given for changes like this. In the Whizzer example I gave, "Hiram Arnold" was never addressed again outside the first Handbook it appeared in. He was given the name "Stanley Stewart" in the comics and "Hiram Arnold" was never explicitly acknowledged or retconed away. The Marvel Encyclopedia declared the Acolyte Delgado was SHIELD agent Harry Delgado. Later Handbooks reversed that decision and made him a new character, Marco Delgado, but an explicit retcon did not happen. In either case the more recent source, be it Handbook or in-universe comic, was considered the dominant authority. By THIS website, no less. :::::::And then you say there are only two ways to accommodate both facts, that they're different characters or the new name is an alias. No, there is a third way -- the OLD name is an alias. Despite the fact that I've been arguing that all along, and there are past examples of that exact conclusion being reached in cases like this, you don't even consider that an option. Because this website is so overwhelmingly biased in favor of the Handbooks, at the expense of the Marvel Comics themselves. The tail is wagging the dog so hard, you don't even think the dog matters anymore! :::::::Seriously, this is like visiting Italy with a Tourist's Guidebook. You visit a spot where the Guidebook says there's an inn, but there's nothing there. Just rubble. Maybe the innkeeper went bankrupt, or there was a landslide that washed it away. But there's clearly no inn there now. But "The Guidebook says there's an inn here", you say, so you start unpacking your bags and sit down in the rubble, waiting for room service or an updated edition of the Guidebook, whichever comes first. :::::::That said, I did contact Undoniel for a second opinion, and he agrees with you. So I won't pursue the matter any further. I will, however, continue to find that site policy utterly ridiculous. Monolith616 (talk) 17:18, May 23, 2015 (UTC) I still don't see any reason to assume that the Swordsman ancestor theory was incorrect, and I don't really see why we should be accommodating a writer who managed to screw up three characters backstories in a single issue. I favour sticking with the names from the Handbooks until the characters appear in print again under one name or another. Tony ingram (talk) 16:51, May 22, 2015 (UTC) Your example is biased by the fact you consider the handbook as an in-universe source. But they are originated from an exterior/omniscient point of view. It's not a tourist book, it's a bible (if you believe to such things). And your example about old handbooks doesn't matter, as a more recent handbook has information of more "value". Undoniel (talk) 11:05, May 24, 2015 (UTC) To be clear: No, I treat the Handbook as LESS than an in-universe source. I believe what happened in the Marvel Universe is the best measure of what happened in the Marvel Universe. The Handbooks are merely a report on the Marvel Universe, a second-hand account of what happened, which should always yield to a first-hand account (The Comics). I fully understand this site chooses to revere the Handbooks as if they were a Bible -- I believe that is a fundamentally wrong-headed perspective. Several creators have gone on record saying they don't use the Handbooks and don't feel bound by them. Dan Slott said during Spider-Verse Earth #designations from the Handbook aren't official unless they were published in a Marvel Comic. The Handbook-as-Bible perspective is not official or universally accepted. But as I said...I understand it's THIS site's policy, and I will color within those lines as best I can manage. Monolith616 (talk) 04:11, May 26, 2015 (UTC) : I'll agree with you on one point: It's not universally accepted. Which in a universe aas diverse as Marvel would be surprising anyway. I have to disagree with you on the official part: The handbooks are published by Marvel. So yes, that makes them very much official. If you wish to make us reconsider our policy towards them, I'll ask you to take this discussion to the forums, as it no longer has anything to do with this issue.--edkaufman (talk) 09:04, May 26, 2015 (UTC) :: To avoid being misquoted one last time, I did not say the Handbooks weren't official -- I said the policy of treating them like the Bible isn't official. But yes, let's continue this another time. Monolith616 (talk) 13:02, May 26, 2015 (UTC) The Appendix just updated their Freedom's Five entries to address the two real names situation. According to their notes for Sir Steel, "Editorial subsequently ruled that Chapel was the real name", supporting the real names from All-New Invaders. http://www.marvunapp.com/Appendix4/sirsteel.htm#silversquire Anyone know the source of that editorial confirmation? Monolith616 (talk) 13:21, May 18, 2016 (UTC)